Submited on: 08 Apr 2013 07:11:24 AM GMT
Published on: 08 Apr 2013 12:26:32 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Authors evaluated human and environmental risks of Amitraz (pesticide).


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No.

    1. "Amitraz" Risk characterization document volume 1, Health assessment section medical toxicology branch, department pesticide regulation California environmental protection agency, December 12, 1995
    2. "Amitraz" Extoxnet, Extension toxicology network, Pesticide information profiles, revised 9/95
    3. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/amitraz/


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Assessment process is excellent, but some parts of sentences are just quoted from the original. Authors should keep up-to-date.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have assessed the risk of chemical compounds for several years.

  • How to cite:  Yoshida T .Authors Should Write a Paper in their own words[Review of the article 'Risk Assessment Process of Amitraz on Environment and Human Health ' by Amini M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002717
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This manuscript reviewed risk assessment process of amitraz on environment and human health. The work is potentially interesting.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The article summarized the new progress.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    1.Detection method of amitraz should be reviewed.

    2.Pollution of amitraz in different area should be reviewed.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Metabolic pathways of amitraz in animal should be reviewed.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
    Immunotoxicity of amitraz in animal should be reviewed.

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology is valid.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
    Specific diagnostic indicators should be reviewed.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    The paper properly reviewed the toxicity of amitraz.


  • Other Comments:

    None.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I majorly study in toxicity.

  • How to cite:  Liu C .Risk Assessment Process of Amitraz on Environment and Human Health[Review of the article 'Risk Assessment Process of Amitraz on Environment and Human Health ' by Amini M].WebmedCentral 2013;4(5):WMCRW002715
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse